Tightening up the prose is usually my final step once I've got the building blocks of the story set. I work on it with each draft after the first, but I make sure to do a final pass after I've solidified all my major plot points and character arcs. For me, that means printing the story out, having a member of the household read the story aloud (preferably a cold reading, but it doesn't have to be), taking notes, and moving on from there.

Obviously, cutting out unnecessary words is a goal (for example, '[character] began to [action]' kept cropping up in my latest story, when '[character acted]' would do perfectly well). I try to ensure that my descriptions flow well and that my characters' thoughts and emotions are represented on the page. (This is also where I make sure dialect is appropriately represented.)

If a person offend you, and you are in doubt as to whether it was intentional or not, do not resort to extreme measures; simply watch your chance and hit him with a brick. ~ Mark Twain2015, Q4: R2016: SF, n/a, SHM, SHM2017: SHM, n/a, F, R

This first came to my attention when a fellow forumite pointed out how addicted I was to the word 'that'. Although there are circumstances where it must be used, there are many others where it adds nothing at all and can just be deleted.

Ishmael decided that he used the word that too often. Ishmael decided he used the word that too often.

There is a fair bit of advice available for tightening your prose. Here's one.

Stephen King recommends cutting 10% of your prose in your final pass (in On Writing). I scoffed when I first read that. "Surely not! Every word I lay down is a perfect and necessary jewel in the crown of my prose."

Nonsense. My initial revisions usually add to word count as I layer the senses in and describe things more clearly and close off plot holes, but for the final prose-only pass, you'd be amazed what you can actually strip out. Simplify verb phrases (e.g. disgruntledpeony's "beginning to act") and take out filtering verbs (realised, thought, decided--those are all things you can imply by just showing), use specific details to imply others, take out unnecessary asides...

Try writing for FFO or Nature, with their strict word limits. You'll soon realise just how much you can cut out when you need to, even if it sometimes takes two or three passes--and you'll spot stuff on that third pass, when you still haven't made it under word count, that you'll wonder how you ever missed such an inefficient phrasing.

Here's a recent example, an excerpt from something I've got under sub at Nature (so please don't share the link further--the piece is unpublished). On the left is draft 1, and this section adds up to 199 words; on the right is the second draft, at 179. Exactly 10% cut, and I managed to get a couple of extra details in as well--I cut enough that I could afford to add something new in. (Sorry for the weird text wrapping on that site, but you get the idea.)

Also: learn which phrases you lean on. I overuse just and only at criminal levels, and if I do a Ctrl+F for them, 90% can be deleted outright. Some people have characters gasping or nodding or smiling all the time. We all have our crutches, you gotta learn what your own is (fun game: see if you can spot the unnecessary just in this very post... )

My only problem with that last example is that it's a vague statement. It might be better to give more sensory detail. Perhaps something like this:

The scent of fried cod hung in the air.

If a person offend you, and you are in doubt as to whether it was intentional or not, do not resort to extreme measures; simply watch your chance and hit him with a brick. ~ Mark Twain2015, Q4: R2016: SF, n/a, SHM, SHM2017: SHM, n/a, F, R

My reason for excluding the 'night air' was (unstated) context. We probably already know it's night. Nights commonly have air. Scent is transmitted by air. If there isn't any air then smell is the least of his deficiencies.

I defy anyone to distinguish the smell of frying cod from that of haddock or plaice. The smell derives from the interaction of heated batter and fat and the batter and fat are common to all three.

On the other hand the smell doesn't travel a great distance and the cod doesn't fry itself, hence I chose to retain "Someone nearby."

Now if it had been a brewery, the smell would be travelling a mile or more and a chipboard factory can be smelled several miles away and is repulsive. Likewise the state of the POV character may well be relevant.

When it is relevant to the story we may add detail. I know DF longs to know whether the bird's cry emanates from a raven or a buzzard. The cod may be another kettle of fish.

All the fish examples given are valid ones. I only wish to point out that one way to tighten prose is to have your words serve double, triple, or quadruple duty whenever possible. Don't just describe the setting or the character or the backstory or move the plot forward, do all four:

When I write, I just go. Whether from a detailed outline in hand or a sketchy outline in head, there is a scene to write and I write it. Looking back slows me down. During the first editing pass, then, there are a number of paragraphs that have redundant or heavily overlapping sentences.

Eliminating redundancies and merging overlapping ideas accounts for over fifty percent of the reduction in that first editing pass. Sometimes a sentence illustrates an idea broadly and a following sentence clarifies it, these are perfect places for reduction, because the specific often implies the general.